My wife works with medico-legal cases, and she thinks its because of how shocking the records are. Illegible and scribbled, content free, clearly done in a rush, or ages afterwards when the doctor doesn't remember the exact details.

I think the "good" point is that while they believe the Bible is true, they accept some of it may be allegorical or metaphorical. Stories with a moral dimension rather than a literal description of reality. Where the Universe contradicts the Bible, then clearly the Bible is not describing reality, but rather is providing a parable.

Don't feed the troll. I've tangled with this guy in other threads. He is dense as a neutron star and utterly unwilling to learn anything no matter how much evidence is shown to him. He hasn't a clue about science or it's methods, witness his fake signature quote as an example.

I love it. You have a strap line about science by Feynman, yet you clearly don't fit to the ideals he would identify with. You make an unsubstantiated assertion, refuse to back it up when challenged and then run away when asked to provide evidence. In other words, completely antithetical to anything Feynman would stand for.

It defines "Program" as "...any copyrightable work licensed under this License"

Binaries cannot be copyrighted, code can.

It defines "Corresponding Source" as not needing to "...include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source..." In other words, since object code can be generated from the source, it does not form part of the Corresponding Source.

So, if you're distributing "object code", you must also distribute the "Corresponding Source", but if you're distributing source code, then "The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same work"

Section 6 covers distributing object code, and the rules for including source with it.

There is NOTHING, NOTHING about having to distributed "object code" with source code.

In other words, you're wrong. You've been wrong from the beginning, but have flailed around like an idiot trying to avoid the difficulty of reading the license itself. I've read it several times before, along with the BSD, MIT, earlier GPLs and the MS licenses, and Creative Commons licenses. I am often asked to advise on software licensing issues for my main client, a stock exchange, as well as having drafted licenses for my company's software products.

However, even I was not so arrogant as to assume I was right, and I went and reviewed the license terms after your first (rude) reply to me.

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, which is why I provide evidence to back up my assertion that your initial, and still unsubstantiated, assertion is wrong. This should not be necessary, since it is usually the person making the assertion who is required to provide the evidence to back their statements up. Of course, you refused to do this, petulantly claiming I had been rude, when in fact the rudeness came from you in your very first reply to me.

Either grow up, or shut up. Provide evidence to back up your assertion or go away.

"Dumb, but clever"; what a stupid comment

Oh, and change your signature, someone as intellectually bankrupt as you should not be associated with Feynman. Anyway, it's not even a Feynman quote, the real one goes "The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”."

Do you have lots of peat bogs? Because here in South Africa we've got very few wetlands. We've got a few deserts which will get bigger. No tundra, not much rain forest. So, the basic point seems to be "the already hot parts of the Earth will just have to starve, and those of us in the temperate latitudes will be alright Jack". Short sighted,immoral, as well as flat out wrong.

You're confusing "good temperature range" with arable. And, yes I did poke fun, because people who (like yourself) clearly don't understand the first thing about the effects of AGW love spouting nonsense like you have above.

it says that when you distribute a "Program" you must include source. It says NOTHING about being required to distribute binaries. Such a requirement would be stupid in the extreme, because what kind of binaries? What if the "Program" runs in an interpreter or browser as JavaScript? What if I provided Windows binaries for an Android app?

1) There is this thing called "Linux" out there. Have you tried it? KDE is better than W7 in so many ways... And IceWM is better in other ways.

You're SO RIGHT! This is it, 2013, the Year of the Linux Desktop!

People just don't UNDERSTAND how much Linux is better than Win/OsX, but I'm sure that this newfangled KDE and IceWM will make them come to their senses. I mean, they must be new right, it can't possibly be that people have seen them and been underwhelmed?

The clue is that it isn't subject to cryptanalysis, it's indistinguishable from random letters. Virtually all non one time pad methods used in that period would be crackable using today's cryptanalysis tools.

And FB itself also got a great deal. If I want to sell something, and market demand has driven the price to well above what it should be, is that my fault as the seller? Because by that logic, Apple should be giving a LOT of money back to the purchasers of its products.